Landslide hazard assessments: problems and limitations. Examples from Hong Kong

S. Parry
{"title":"Landslide hazard assessments: problems and limitations. Examples from Hong Kong","authors":"S. Parry","doi":"10.1144/EGSP27.12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Hong Kong has made considerable progress in reducing landslide hazards from man-made slopes. As a consequence, Hong Kong has recently commenced the systematic evaluation of landslides from natural slopes. This paper discusses the assessment approached adopted, limitations with the approach and the problems with landslide hazard assessment in general by means of a case study. The paper concludes that the current approach, whilst suitable for its original purpose, that is the rapid evaluation of the likely magnitude of landslide hazards at the review stage of a development, has limitations when used for systematic landslide assessments at existing developments. It is suggested that landslide hazard assessments to quantify ‘top events’, for example loss of life, would be an improved approach which would allow simplified quantitative risk assessment (QRA) to be undertaken. However, such an approach requires a significant level of engineering geological and engineering geomorphological input. In particular, the careful derivation of appropriate values of landslide magnitude and frequency, based on expert judgment and making use of available data, knowledge and experience.","PeriodicalId":266864,"journal":{"name":"Engineering Geology Special Publication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Engineering Geology Special Publication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1144/EGSP27.12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Abstract Hong Kong has made considerable progress in reducing landslide hazards from man-made slopes. As a consequence, Hong Kong has recently commenced the systematic evaluation of landslides from natural slopes. This paper discusses the assessment approached adopted, limitations with the approach and the problems with landslide hazard assessment in general by means of a case study. The paper concludes that the current approach, whilst suitable for its original purpose, that is the rapid evaluation of the likely magnitude of landslide hazards at the review stage of a development, has limitations when used for systematic landslide assessments at existing developments. It is suggested that landslide hazard assessments to quantify ‘top events’, for example loss of life, would be an improved approach which would allow simplified quantitative risk assessment (QRA) to be undertaken. However, such an approach requires a significant level of engineering geological and engineering geomorphological input. In particular, the careful derivation of appropriate values of landslide magnitude and frequency, based on expert judgment and making use of available data, knowledge and experience.
滑坡灾害评估:问题与局限。香港的例子
香港在减少人造斜坡造成的滑坡灾害方面取得了相当大的进展。因此,香港最近开始系统地评估天然斜坡造成的山泥倾泻。本文通过实例讨论了所采用的评价方法、评价方法的局限性以及一般滑坡危险性评价中存在的问题。本文的结论是,目前的方法虽然适合其最初的目的,即在开发项目的审查阶段快速评估滑坡危害的可能程度,但在用于现有开发项目的系统滑坡评估时存在局限性。建议滑坡危害评估量化“顶级事件”,例如生命损失,将是一种改进的方法,可以进行简化的定量风险评估(QRA)。然而,这种方法需要大量的工程地质和工程地貌学的投入。特别是在专家判断的基础上,利用现有的数据、知识和经验,仔细推导出滑坡的震级和频率的适当值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信